It seems strange to me, said CLEANTHES, that you, DEMEA, who are so
sincere in the cause of religion, should still maintain the mysterious,
incomprehensible nature of the Deity, and should insist so strenuously
that he has no manner of likeness or resemblance to human creatures. The
Deity, I can readily allow, possesses many powers and attributes of which
we can have no comprehension: But if our ideas, so far as they go, be not
just, and adequate, and correspondent to his real nature, I know not what
there is in this subject worth insisting on. Is the name, without any
meaning, of such mighty importance? Or how do you mystics, who maintain
the absolute incomprehensibility of the Deity, differ from Sceptics or
Atheists, who assert, that the first cause of all is unknown and
unintelligible? Their temerity must be very great, if, after rejecting
the production by a mind, I mean a mind resembling the human, (for I know
of no other,) they pretend to assign, with certainty, any other specific
intelligible cause: And their conscience must be very scrupulous indeed,
if they refuse to call the universal unknown cause a God or Deity; and to
bestow on him as many sublime eulogies and unmeaning epithets as you
shall please to require of them.
Who could imagine, replied DEMEA, that CLEANTHES, the calm philosophical
CLEANTHES, would attempt to refute his antagonists by affixing a nickname
to them; and, like the common bigots and inquisitors of the age, have
recourse to invective and declamation, instead of reasoning? Or does he
not perceive, that these topics are easily retorted, and that
Anthropomorphite is an appellation as invidious, and implies as dangerous
consequences, as the epithet of Mystic, with which he has honoured us? In
reality, CLEANTHES, consider what it is you assert when you represent the
Deity as similar to a human mind and understanding. What is the soul of
man? A composition of various faculties, passions, sentiments, ideas;
united, indeed, into one self or person, but still distinct from each
other. When it reasons, the ideas, which are the parts of its discourse,
arrange themselves in a certain form or order; which is not preserved
entire for a moment, but immediately gives place to another arrangement.
New opinions, new passions, new affections, new feelings arise, which
continually diversify the mental scene, and produce in it the greatest
variety and most rapid succession imaginable. How is this compatible with
that perfect immutability and simplicity which all true Theists ascribe
to the Deity? By the same act, say they, he sees past, present, and
future: His love and hatred, his mercy and justice, are one individual
operation: He is entire in every point of space; and complete in every
instant of duration. No succession, no change, no acquisition, no
diminution. What he is implies not in it any shadow of distinction or
diversity. And what he is this moment he ever has been, and ever will be,
without any new judgement, sentiment, or operation. He stands fixed in
one simple, perfect state: nor can you ever say, with any propriety, that
this act of his is different from that other; or that this judgement or
idea has been lately formed, and will give place, by succession, to any
different judgement or idea.
I can readily allow, said CLEANTHES, that those who maintain the perfect
simplicity of the Supreme Being, to the extent in which you have
explained it, are complete Mystics, and chargeable with all the
consequences which I have drawn from their opinion. They are, in a word,
Atheists, without knowing it. For though it be allowed, that the Deity
possesses attributes of which we have no comprehension, yet ought we
never to ascribe to him any attributes which are absolutely incompatible
with that intelligent nature essential to him. A mind, whose acts and
sentiments and ideas are not distinct and successive; one, that is wholly
simple, and totally immutable, is a mind which has no thought, no reason,
no will, no sentiment, no love, no hatred; or, in a word, is no mind at
all. It is an abuse of terms to give it that appellation; and we may as
well speak of limited extension without figure, or of number without
composition.
Pray consider, said PHILO, whom you are at present inveighing against.
You are honouring with the appellation of Atheist all the sound, orthodox
divines, almost, who have treated of this subject; and you will at last
be, yourself, found, according to your reckoning, the only sound Theist
in the world. But if idolaters be Atheists, as, I think, may justly be
asserted, and Christian Theologians the same, what becomes of the
argument, so much celebrated, derived from the universal consent of
mankind?
But because I know you are not much swayed by names and authorities, I
shall endeavour to show you, a little more distinctly, the inconveniences
of that Anthropomorphism, which you have embraced; and shall prove, that
there is no ground to suppose a plan of the world to be formed in the
Divine mind, consisting of distinct ideas, differently arranged, in the
same manner as an architect forms in his head the plan of a house which
he intends to execute.
It is not easy, I own, to see what is gained by this supposition, whether
we judge of the matter by Reason or by Experience. We are still obliged
to mount higher, in order to find the cause of this cause, which you had
assigned as satisfactory and conclusive.
If Reason (I mean abstract reason, derived from inquiries a priori) be
not alike mute with regard to all questions concerning cause and effect,
this sentence at least it will venture to pronounce, That a mental world,
or universe of ideas, requires a cause as much, as does a material world,
or universe of objects; and, if similar in its arrangement, must require
a similar cause. For what is there in this subject, which should occasion
a different conclusion or inference? In an abstract view, they are
entirely alike; and no difficulty attends the one supposition, which is
not common to both of them.
Again, when we will needs force Experience to pronounce some sentence,
even on these subjects which lie beyond her sphere, neither can she
perceive any material difference in this particular, between these two
kinds of worlds; but finds them to be governed by similar principles, and
to depend upon an equal variety of causes in their operations. We have
specimens in miniature of both of them. Our own mind resembles the one; a
vegetable or animal body the other. Let experience, therefore, judge from
these samples. Nothing seems more delicate, with regard to its causes,
than thought; and as these causes never operate in two persons after the
same manner, so we never find two persons who think exactly alike. Nor
indeed does the same person think exactly alike at any two different
periods of time. A difference of age, of the disposition of his body, of
weather, of food, of company, of books, of passions; any of these
particulars, or others more minute, are sufficient to alter the curious
machinery of thought, and communicate to it very different movements and
operations. As far as we can judge, vegetables and animal bodies are not
more delicate in their motions, nor depend upon a greater variety or more
curious adjustment of springs and principles.
How, therefore, shall we satisfy ourselves concerning the cause of that
Being whom you suppose the Author of Nature, or, according to your system
of Anthropomorphism, the ideal world, into which you trace the material?
Have we not the same reason to trace that ideal world into another ideal
world, or new intelligent principle? But if we stop, and go no further;
why go so far? why not stop at the material world? How can we satisfy
ourselves without going on in infinitum? And, after all, what
satisfaction is there in that infinite progression? Let us remember the
story of the Indian philosopher and his elephant. It was never more
applicable than to the present subject. If the material world rests upon
a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so
on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the
present material world. By supposing it to contain the principle of its
order within itself, we really assert it to be God; and the sooner we
arrive at that Divine Being, so much the better. When you go one step
beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humour which it
is impossible ever to satisfy.
To say, that the different ideas which compose the reason of the Supreme
Being, fall into order of themselves, and by their own nature, is really
to talk without any precise meaning. If it has a meaning, I would fain
know, why it is not as good sense to say, that the parts of the material
world fall into order of themselves and by their own nature. Can the one
opinion be intelligible, while the other is not so?
We have, indeed, experience of ideas which fall into order of themselves,
and without any known cause. But, I am sure, we have a much larger
experience of matter which does the same; as, in all instances of
generation and vegetation, where the accurate analysis of the cause
exceeds all human comprehension. We have also experience of particular
systems of thought and of matter which have no order; of the first in
madness, of the second in corruption. Why, then, should we think, that
order is more essential to one than the other? And if it requires a cause
in both, what do we gain by your system, in tracing the universe of
objects into a similar universe of ideas? The first step which we make
leads us on for ever. It were, therefore, wise in us to limit all our
inquiries to the present world, without looking further. No satisfaction
can ever be attained by these speculations, which so far exceed the
narrow bounds of human understanding.
It was usual with the PERIPATETICS, you know, CLEANTHES, when the cause
of any phenomenon was demanded, to have recourse to their faculties or
occult qualities; and to say, for instance, that bread nourished by its
nutritive faculty, and senna purged by its purgative. But it has been
discovered, that this subterfuge was nothing but the disguise of
ignorance; and that these philosophers, though less ingenuous, really
said the same thing with the sceptics or the vulgar, who fairly confessed
that they knew not the cause of these phenomena. In like manner, when it
is asked, what cause produces order in the ideas of the Supreme Being;
can any other reason be assigned by you, Anthropomorphites, than that it
is a rational faculty, and that such is the nature of the Deity? But why
a similar answer will not be equally satisfactory in accounting for the
order of the world, without having recourse to any such intelligent
creator as you insist on, may be difficult to determine. It is only to
say, that such is the nature of material objects, and that they are all
originally possessed of a faculty of order and proportion. These are only
more learned and elaborate ways of confessing our ignorance; nor has the
one hypothesis any real advantage above the other, except in its greater
conformity to vulgar prejudices.
You have displayed this argument with great emphasis, replied CLEANTHES:
You seem not sensible how easy it is to answer it. Even in common life,
if I assign a cause for any event, is it any objection, PHILO, that I
cannot assign the cause of that cause, and answer every new question
which may incessantly be started? And what philosophers could possibly
submit to so rigid a rule? philosophers, who confess ultimate causes to
be totally unknown; and are sensible, that the most refined principles
into which they trace the phenomena, are still to them as inexplicable as
these phenomena themselves are to the vulgar. The order and arrangement
of nature, the curious adjustment of final causes, the plain use and
intention of every part and organ; all these bespeak in the clearest
language an intelligent cause or author. The heavens and the earth join
in the same testimony: The whole chorus of Nature raises one hymn to the
praises of its Creator. You alone, or almost alone, disturb this general
harmony. You start abstruse doubts, cavils, and objections: You ask me,
what is the cause of this cause? I know not; I care not; that concerns
not me. I have found a Deity; and here I stop my inquiry. Let those go
further, who are wiser or more enterprising.
I pretend to be neither, replied PHILO: And for that very reason, I
should never perhaps have attempted to go so far; especially when I am
sensible, that I must at last be contented to sit down with the same
answer, which, without further trouble, might have satisfied me from the
beginning. If I am still to remain in utter ignorance of causes, and can
absolutely give an explication of nothing, I shall never esteem it any
advantage to shove off for a moment a difficulty, which, you acknowledge,
must immediately, in its full force, recur upon me. Naturalists indeed
very justly explain particular effects by more general causes, though
these general causes themselves should remain in the end totally
inexplicable; but they never surely thought it satisfactory to explain a
particular effect by a particular cause, which was no more to be
accounted for than the effect itself. An ideal system, arranged of
itself, without a precedent design, is not a whit more explicable than a
material one, which attains its order in a like manner; nor is there any
more difficulty in the latter supposition than in the former.